Vista upgrade needs old OS already installed

It looks like some folks upgrading to Vista may be in for a bit of surprise when they take a closer look at the installation instructions, with Ars Technica reporting that Microsoft has decided to shake up the upgrade procedure a bit this time around. The main change is that, unlike earlier versions of Windows, you apparently won't be able to simply use a license key from your old OS to install one of the upgrade editions of Vista on your PC, with Vista instead requiring that Windows XP or Windows 2000 already be installed. Those looking for a clean install won't be entirely out of luck, however, with Vista offering the option to back up your old OS and install Vista into a fresh directory. Although that'll no doubt be a small consolation to those looking to start from scratch on a PC without shelling out the big bucks for a full version of Vista, with them now having to go through two complete installations to get up and running.

[Via Slashdot]

[Gil @ Jan 29th 2007 1:21PM]

I'm still reading the article and I can't believe it's real.

"Vista upgrade needs old OS already installed"

Well... DUH! That's why it's Vista UPGRADE. If you have the normal version of Vista you can do a clean install

[Chris @ Jan 29th 2007 1:26PM]

win2k and XP upgrade installs only required you to insert an install CD of the old OS to "prove" you owned it. I don't see how this requiring to install is better, since if you copied a CD to fake the upgrade, you can just as easily install from it. it just punished the consumer, nothing more.

MS's new windows slogan should be: What would you lke DRM'd today?

[Sam @ Jan 29th 2007 1:27PM]

Well why can't it just verify it by checking my old Windows CD like the XP upgrade does? What purpose does having it already installed serve?

[John Doe @ Jan 29th 2007 1:34PM]

Gil. You are a moron. Upgrade simply means you already own a previous Windows OS. In the past MS simply verified this through either a media check or key check. There is NO reason to need to have the OS installed other then being an ass. Now we can all forget about a clean format and install unless you want to get anal raped by MS and shell out money for a full version. Good god the people on Engadget are getting stupider every month.

[Brian Sexton @ Jan 29th 2007 2:40PM]

"DUH"? Your understanding seems to be perhaps even more lacking than your communication skills; the time for you to read and contemplate what you have read has arrived.

Software upgrades are more about upgrading licenses to new versions than about upgrading software, which in actuality, tends to be wholly replaced or at the very least, partially overwritten. Upgrades almost always contain the full current version of whatever it is that is being upgraded and that is true of Windows itself. Thus, whether a particular version of Windows Vista is called an upgrade has nothing to do with what is already installed on any particular system except insofar as Microsoft's installer requires it to be there, possibly for piracy prevention purposes.

Historically, Windows upgrades have allowed clean installations, requiring proof of ownership of a previous version, but not actual installation. Thus, if a new version has a different requirement, that change--and the inconvenience it may cause during subsequent installations (e.g. after replacing a hard drive)--are both valid, important news.

It seems then that the only "DUH" appropriately applied here should be to you and anyone who positively voted for your post.

[Chris @ Jan 29th 2007 1:23PM]

man, re-installs will be a bitch! why don't they just call it Windows PMITA*

what is with the current trend of treating legit customers like criminals? the pirates aren't going to use an upgrade version anyway, they'll just crack the full version.



*(Pound Me In The Ass)

[chaosrain @ Jan 29th 2007 1:26PM]

If you read the Microsoft KnowledgeBase article about this issue, it is confined to:

• Windows Vista Home Premium
• Windows Vista Home Basic
• Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit edition
• Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit edition
• Windows Vista Starter

If you're going for Windows Vista Ultimate, or Windows Vista Business, it appears that these restrictions do not apply. As I'm going to be upgrading my primary PC to Vista Ultimate and then, only later, upgrading my Media Center PC and wife's laptop to Windows Vista Home Premium (likely 32 bit edition), I should never run into this issue.

[Alex @ Jan 29th 2007 1:26PM]

Actually this isn't true at all. If you have purchased a PC from like dell or hp, there is a secret partition on the hard drive that will allow you too do a clean install.

[John Doe @ Jan 29th 2007 1:36PM]

Another fucking level of anti piracy no doubt. The thing probably checks to see if the copy of XP is activated or not.
I received a free copy of Vista Business. The more I read about this fucking OS the more I'm thinking of putting the damn thing on e-bay. Worthless piece of shit it is.

[telepheedian @ Jan 29th 2007 1:32PM]

They do it for speed, so that instead of installing XP with the skin, you can just install the skin on an existing copy of XP.


:P

[nightryder21 @ Jan 29th 2007 1:37PM]

This only affects the "Vista Upgrade" version. So the retail and oem version do not need xp installed. Why not just buy a "OEM" version? Half the price as retail and no need to "upgrade". I say this will only affect a small percentage of people with XP looking to move onto Vista.

[WedgeTalon @ Jan 29th 2007 1:39PM]

To any who don't understand why, exactly, this is a bad thing, consider this situation:

Your Vista installation has just bitten the dust. It's a complete failure; it won't boot at all. You need to completely reinstall Vista. So now, with this new restriction, you must first install Win XP/2K prior to installing Vista. Talk about pouring salt on a wound.

That aside, clean installs just always, historically, seem to run a bit nicer than in-place upgrades.

[nightryder21 @ Jan 29th 2007 3:36PM]

That only applies if you have the "Upgrade" version of vista. It does not apply to the retail and em version. If you guys have that big of problem get an oem or retail version. I say 99.99% of all do-it-yourselfers will use an OEM version of vista.

but on the other hand if you are a regular joe and buy the "upgrade" version of vista and something happens then sucks for you. I wonder what microsoft says for different scenarios.

-Like you said if your installation failed. Will you need to install your old OS or will it beable to recover knowing that it was already verified.

But most people will buy the retail or oem version. So it looks like a non-issue for most people.

[YukonDawg @ Jan 29th 2007 1:39PM]

Just. Shoot. Me.

[chris @ Jan 29th 2007 1:42PM]

"Well... DUH! That's why it's Vista UPGRADE."

Well you can't install it as an upgrade in Parallels because I have tried it and it does not work, and I am supposing VMWare is the same. Nowhere is this stated by Microsoft. If someone can find it please show me. Thanks Microsoft for making it more difficult/impossible for people that have acually purchased your software. I am using both XP and OS X and Ubuntu but think I will not ever go to Vista. When XP gets long in the tooth I will us Mac OS and Ubuntu Linux Only.

[Cosmos @ Jan 29th 2007 1:47PM]

This sucks for me, because my Windows XP disk is on its last leg. I've always been careful with it and it *looks* like it is in good condition, but when I try to use it to install Windows XP, it always stops on the same file and I have to take it out of the disk drive, rub it really hard with a microfiber cloth and put it back in before it'll copy that particular install file.

[captain obvious @ Jan 29th 2007 1:48PM]

okay, retards

xp has to be installed and activated because dipshits like you will use an xp disk for which you do not have a license

[Obvious @ Jan 29th 2007 1:48PM]

RABBLE!!!! Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble!!!!!!

[steve @ Jan 29th 2007 1:57PM]

Unless we're talking about all the people that got a free upgrade coupon, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Just buy a OEM copy from Newegg. It's cheaper than the upgrade and none of the hassle.

[Rob @ Jan 29th 2007 4:51PM]

The problem with the OEM edition is that it is not transferable from computer to computer. Basically for Ultimate, you just added $200 to the price of a computer, and if you decide to retire that computer and build a new one, you are out of $200 again.

[Zeke Skylar @ Jan 29th 2007 2:10PM]

I installed the OEM version of Home Premium over Vista RC1 and install dialog told me the only clean install was to move old windows to a windows.old directory. No option to format the partition over.

[vista @ Jan 29th 2007 2:05PM]

don't worry about that its completely false,once you do a fresh install you don't need an os

[kahn66 @ Jan 29th 2007 2:06PM]

I would just like to point out that most of the Vista OEM's are cheaper than the actual upgrade price (Ultimate OEM is ~220, upgrade is ~250). Not only will it be cheaper but it also eliminates the whole xp/2000 issue.

[James @ Jan 29th 2007 2:16PM]

But couldn't your purchase an upgrade copy of windows and then download a copy of the full version that you just brought and do a clean install that way? because haven't you just brought a serial key for the full version anyway?

[PA @ Jan 29th 2007 2:17PM]

GET A MAC! Do you know u can buy 5 OSX licenses for 249.00$, yes U need 5 Mac but it's still a bargaincompare to the still insecure VISTA(A Windows server 2003 makeover). By the way, don't trow away 600$ to 800$ for an office bundle when you can get one for free at openoffice.org ;-)

[Ayle @ Jan 29th 2007 2:18PM]

STFU!

[Rishard @ Jan 29th 2007 2:18PM]

Personally I don't have a big problem with this. It will take a bit longer any time I need to do a fresh install, but thats ok. Actually I plan on buying Ulitmate Edition so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Hawk @ Jan 29th 2007 3:39PM]

just to make sure I get this straight...Windows Ultimate Edition Upgrade will allow a clean install with proof of older XP CD but Windows Premium cannot? Premium costs $259 for full edition, which is same price for upgrade of Ultimate. So why not just get Ultimate Edition now right? I will be purchasing Vista soon but want to make sure I get the right edition (upgrade or full) to get what I need.

[DaLa @ Jan 29th 2007 2:22PM]

I receieved my free copy of Vista Business from that PowerTogether website. It sucks, besides missing drivers which I expect and understand, it pops-up warnings for everything. If I want to delete a shortcut, it does this. I cant figure out how to stop that, anyone? And yes, it is noticeably slower due to all the graphics, and I run a dual 2.2GHz opteron with 2Gb of ram.

[Jeratain @ Jan 30th 2007 12:06AM]

Turn off UAC if it bothers you that much. This OS is a huge improvement, runs fast, looks great, and feels intuitive.

[joe deptula @ Jan 29th 2007 7:42PM]

to remove the annoying warnings, just go to control panel, then security, hit check this computers security status, then on the pop up that comes up, hit the other security settings tab and under user account control, shut it off.

[Peter @ Jan 29th 2007 2:34PM]

Why would anyone upgrade now? There is no software that requires vista, you will just be joining the extended Beta you pay for.

Face it, most people never upgraded, they get a new OS when they get a new PC. I won't go to vista unless it comes on a computer I buy or some absolute must have software is Vista Only and I doubt that will happen for at least a couple of years.

[George @ Jan 29th 2007 2:43PM]

Apparently you can do unlimited free Vista installs if you're overwriting OSX or Linux.

[aaj111 @ Jan 29th 2007 2:51PM]

So basically, in a nutshell, you will need XP or 2000 to install Vista? I thought Vista was a complete new system... GAH! Damnit! More crappy news everyday.

[Mikeyg @ Jan 29th 2007 3:00PM]

no idiot, you need them if you buy the upgrade versions

[Coolwave @ Jan 29th 2007 3:03PM]

Who is even going to notice this?

The home users who purchase the upgrade don't plan on reinstalling the operating system in the future and actually want to upgrade rather than do a clean install.

The geeks who do like to reinstall are (should be) smart enough to buy the cheaper OEM editions. When I saw the headline it did make me forget for a second that I was planning on buying the OEM not the upgrade.

[Shawn @ Jan 29th 2007 3:13PM]

Why would I buy a mac? It's just an over-priced piece of hardware. Let's see here...

Apple iMac 24"
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
For how much? $2,748.00


Building a new one from newegg.com
ECS NFORCE 570 Mobo
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
BFG Tech GeForce 7600GT 256MB
SAMSUNG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner w/ LightScribe
APEVIA X-Navigator Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Acer AL2423Wdr 24" Widescreen LCD
Grand Total: $1,990.92

So your going to spend an extra $757.08 for the Apple logo and everything built into the screen? Gimme a break, gimme a break, break me off a piece of that Kit Kat bar!

[J Meador @ Feb 4th 2007 10:44PM]

First thing to consider is that OSX will run fine on older macs no need to upgrade the cpu. Second there are no hoops to jump thru to run OSX, running it or installing it (thank you Apple). Third OSX is rock solid when compared to Windows. I dumped MS 8 years ago and have never looked back and have never regreted the choice. Bottom line is if you like to spend your time tinkering with your OS get a Windows machine, If you want to be productive and hassle free with your OS get a Mac.

[James @ Jan 29th 2007 3:42PM]

Shawn, you just compared *buying* an Apple computer with *building* a windows compatible computer. You are a moron. But please tell me you do contracting work, as you obviously only charge for parts and not labor... I got some work for you.

[Brad Bower @ Jan 29th 2007 3:42PM]

Those numbers are merely one scenario, an Apple-pimped out iMac. It's no secret that Apple overcharges for installing extra RAM themselves... plus it's a piece of cake to do it yourself. And you're comparing it to building one yourself from NewEgg, so don't tell me you are incapable of sticking RAM and an HD into the iMac.

Not to mention you aren't including HD cables, an iSight-quality camera, a microphone, a keyboard, a mouse, or an operating system (OEM or otherwise).

Forgive the pun, but compare apples to apples or STFU.

[kpluck @ Jan 29th 2007 3:50PM]

I don't believe this article is correct. According the Microsoft's web site, there are upgrade situations where you have to do a clean install. The matrix for this is here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradepaths.mspx

I think this is another case of IHS (internet hysteria syndrome). People are so amped up about wanting to hate Vista they just aren't able to properly interpret or understand anything about it.

[Joe @ Jan 29th 2007 3:56PM]

What's Vista? Does this have anything to do with the iPhone?

[Heyzeus @ Jan 29th 2007 4:15PM]

One OS to rule them all: Ham95

[Steve D. @ Jan 29th 2007 4:45PM]

That pretty much killed my interest to buy myself a copy of Vista U. upgrade... Oh BTW thanks a lot Microsoft, not to mention increase the price of a full version copy, a copy of XP is required for installation?

Guess I'm staying with XP for now.

[r275delta @ Jan 29th 2007 7:33PM]

I work at a college, and we just received a set of "upgrade" CDs for Vista Business that wouldn't boot, and we needed to run the installer from an existing operating system.

Copying all the files to the hard drive, adding a bootsector with Nero, and reburning the first CD took about 15 minutes. We now have a full set of install discs that don't require any previous OS to be installed.

Maybe the home editions have more protection than that, but I think that everybody may be making a big deal over a small issue here.

[Mike @ Jan 29th 2007 10:57PM]

You want to lay down a thumpin on that overpriced nonsense... you forgot that the Mac includes the OS and iLife. You need Windows on that beast (would be silly to spend $2000 for a linux box).

Try this on for size...

Yours:
ECS NFORCE 570 Mobo
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
BFG Tech GeForce 7600GT 256MB
SAMSUNG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner w/ LightScribe
APEVIA X-Navigator Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Acer AL2423Wdr 24" Widescreen LCD
Vista Home Premium OEM ($239)
Grand Total: $2229.92

Mine:
Mac Pro
Dual 2ghz Dual Core Xeons (Woodcrest)
2GB 667 DDR2 ECC SDRAM (4x512)
500gig SATA HD
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
16x DVD±R DVD Burner
MacOS X Panther
iLife 06
Acer 22" Widescreen LCD ($300)
Total: $2998

Is it almost $800 more? Yes.

Does it have more processing power? Yes.

Can it run MacOS AND Windows? Yes.

Do you have to live in fear of blue screens, spyware, viruses, and erratic performance? Nope.

Add all that up and the Mac Pro is a better deal, IMHO. If you go with retail Vista or Ultimate, the price gap shrinks even further.

[kelley @ Jan 29th 2007 11:40PM]

r275delta....could you point me toward directions on how to create a boot sector with Nero 6? Thanks!

[happythoughts @ Jan 30th 2007 12:35AM]

Is the Mcrib still at McDonald's?

[uberjumper @ Jan 30th 2007 1:20AM]

Interesting. So if I get an Upgrade copy today, and as my XP partition blew up last month, and I figured I might as well install Vista RC1 to tide me over, I've got to completely uninstall RC1 to install Vista?

Oh well.

[Lonnie McClure @ Jan 30th 2007 2:26AM]

Cosmos:

I take it you don't realize that Microsoft's OS CDs are not copyprotected, and you can easily make a backup copy.